{ "id": 1589997, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus Sims, a Minor, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sims", "decision_date": "1969-07-02", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 52,631", "first_page": "58", "last_page": "63", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 Ill. App. 2d 58" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "190 NE2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 Ill2d 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5364393 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "96-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/28/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 US 523", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5700279 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/159/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 NE2d 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 Ill App2d 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5294157 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/64/0409-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 NE2d 10", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill2d 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377129 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ill App 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5176542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/64/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 NE2d 675", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 Ill2d 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2726213 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/10/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 NE2d 348", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "390 Ill 294", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2509262 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/390/0294-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 NE 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 Ill 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5031549 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/298/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 NE2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 Ill2d 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2860162 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337-338" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/38/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 NE2d 815", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 Ill App2d 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5274211 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/49/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 NE 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 Ill 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4956569 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/288/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 NE 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 Ill 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3298230 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/208/0052-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 444, "char_count": 6774, "ocr_confidence": 0.619, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.4804701416374535e-07, "percentile": 0.9223309930424515 }, "sha256": "bf00d175f897827dd0c45d964c86b3d0e3cdc91538cc7af5ca22782fddb8f253", "simhash": "1:a7a87f2f8c74a0ad", "word_count": 1135 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:40:28.735003+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus Sims, a Minor, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAfter a hearing, without a jury, on a delinquency petition, defendant was found delinquent and was placed on probation.\nPOINT RAISED ON APPEAL\nThe thirteen-year-old complaining witness was incompetent to testify.\nEVIDENCE\nWhen the State called the complaining witness, Randolph Brown, it was established that he was 13 years old. Defense counsel then requested that the court conduct an inquiry to ascertain the competence of the witness before permitting him to testify. The following ensued:\nTHE COURT: \u201cDo you know what will happen to you if you don\u2019t tell the truth?\u201d\nA. \u201cNo.\u201d\nASSISTANT STATE\u2019S ATTORNEY: \u201cDo you know what will happen to you if you don\u2019t tell the truth ?\u201d\nA. \u201cNo.\u201d\nQ. \u201cWhat happens to you if you tell a lie?\u201d\nA. \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cAre you going to tell the truth in this hearing?\u201d\nA. \u201cYes.\u201d\nDEFENSE ATTORNEY: \u201cWhat is the truth, Randolph; what does it mean, the truth?\u201d\nA. \u201c (No response.) \u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cProceed.\u201d\nDEFENSE ATTORNEY: \u201cYour Honor, for the record, I would object at this time; the boy stated first of all he doesn\u2019t know the consequences of either telling the truth or lying; and this is a proceeding which is sanctified by the oath to give strength to the testimony; secondly, the boy is unable to answer the question as to what the truth is. It is my contention by these answers that the Court is competent to \u2014 \u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cThe Court will ascertain the credibility of this testimony; please proceed \u2014 \u201d\nThe witness then testified concerning the incident in question, at the conclusion of which defense counsel moved to strike his testimony.\nTHE COURT: \u201cI can\u2019t dismiss his testimony and I won\u2019t.\u201d\nDEFENSE ATTORNEY: \u201cOn the grounds again that he\u2019s incompetent to testify.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cThe Court will weigh the credibility of the competency. We\u2019re dealing with a juvenile; we\u2019re dealing with the most difficult testimony, the Court is well aware of it.\u201d\nOPINION\nDefendant contends that the preliminary inquiry of the thirteen-year-old complaining witness failed to establish his competence to testify, and that, as a result, the trial court abused its discretion in permitting his testimony to be given.\nIn this state, every person who is fourteen years old is presumed competent to testify. Shannon v. Swanson, 208 Ill 52, 69 NE 869; People v. Karpovich, 288 Ill 268, 123 NE 324. When a child under that age is called to testify, it is the duty of the trial judge to determine first whether the child is competent as a witness. Knab v. Alden\u2019s Irving Park, Inc., 49 Ill App2d 371, 199 NE2d 815; People v. Crews, 38 Ill2d 331, 231 NE2d 451. To do this, the judge must hold a preliminary inquiry into the competency of the proffered witness by examining the child\u2019s intelligence, understanding, and moral sense. People v. Johnson, 298 Ill 52, 131 NE 149; People v. Crowe, 390 Ill 294, 61 NE2d 348; People v. Davis, 10 Ill2d 430, 140 NE2d 675; Epstein v. Berkowsky, 64 Ill App 498. If testimony is to be permitted, the court\u2019s inquiry must, with reason, satisfy the judge that the witness is sufficiently mature (1) to receive correct impressions by his senses, (2) to recollect these impressions, (3) to understand questions and narrate answers intelligently, and (4) to appreciate the moral duty to tell the truth (and comprehend the meaning of the oath). People v. Ballinger, 36 Ill2d 620, 225 NE2d 10; Shannon v. Swanson, supra; People v. Karpovich, supra; People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Crowe, supra; People v. Davis, supra; Knab v. Alden\u2019s Irving Park, Inc., supra; Dallas v. Granite City Steel Company, 64 Ill App2d 409, 211 NE2d 907; Wheeler v. United States, 159 US 523. This decision of the trial judge may be reviewed, but, because of his unique position and the latitude of his discretion in this matter, his decision will not be reversed unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a manifest misapprehension of a legal principle. Shannon v. Swanson, supra; People v. Karpovich, supra; People v. Davis, supra. It is our conclusion in the instant case, however, that the abbreviated preliminary inquiry (set forth above in its entirety) did not meet the requirements of the cases cited; that it did not, therefore, establish that the witness was competent to testify; and that permitting him to do so, in this circumstance, constituted an abuse of the court\u2019s discretion.\nThe State argues that the procedure for determining preliminarily the competency of a juvenile witness should be limited to jury cases, since in a bench trial the judge passes on both the competency and the credibility of the witness; that if, during the course of testimony, the witness shows himself to be incompetent to testify, the trial judge may then disregard his testimony; and that, on the other hand, a witness, during the course of his testimony, may reveal himself to be competent. This argument fails, however, because the points to be covered in a competency inquiry are rarely discernible through testimony on the trial issues, and a judge, no less than a juror, must shield his mind from the prejudicial effect of incompetent evidence. It is for this reason that the procedure for prior determination of competency has been applied not only to jury trials but also to bench trials or hearings without a jury. People v. Tappin, 28 Ill2d 95, 96-98, 190 NE2d 806; People v. Crews, 38 Ill2d 331, 337-338, 231 NE2d 451.\nThe State also argues that the cases cited in support of defendant\u2019s appeal are distinguishable, because in those cases the juvenile witnesses testified to occurrences they had heard or observed between the defendant and a third party, whereas the complaining witness in the case before us was testifying to a degrading and outrageous assault upon himself. This distinction could-cut either way, and we do not believe that it can be counted on to enhance the reliability of the witness to the point of obviating the necessity for an adequate preliminary inquiry as to competency.\nWith no intention to narrow in any way the general application of the governing rule in this case, we should like to emphasize its importance here since the complainant was the State\u2019s only witness, and his charges were denied by defendant.\nDECISION\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nDRUCKER, P. J. and McNAMARA, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert A. Shuker, of Chicago, for appellant.", "John J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Edward Stasukaitis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus Sims, a Minor, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 52,631.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nJuly 2, 1969.\nRobert A. Shuker, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJohn J. Stamos, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Edward Stasukaitis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0058-01", "first_page_order": 64, "last_page_order": 69 }